East Side Monthly Editorial Misses the Mark

East Side Monthly has a curious editorial about Nathan Bishop in its April issue. The editorial makes some good points but it is ill-informed or misguided on others, and a response is in order.

The first point of the editorial is that, before tearing down Bishop to build a new school, we should think carefully about whether it would be better to renovate and preserve the structure. There is nothing to argue with here, as everyone agrees that we should carefully consider the costs and benefits- economic, aesthetic, cultural and educational- before we make this decision. Fortunately, the architects will soon be holding one or more public meetings where residents will have a chance to carefully consider and weigh in on these issues. We hope the ESM editorial staff will attend. Watch this space for announcements regarding dates.

The editorial’s point that we should be wary of new construction because many new buildings are downright ugly is also well-taken. Some modern schools look like, to quote School Board member Bert Crenca, prison architecture. At the same time, the designs of Architectural Innovations, the firm hired to design Bishop, should convince almost anyone that new schools can be lovely indeed.

The editorial then suggests that the DeJong Planning Group would profit if Bishop were torn down and rebuilt, and their recommendations are therefore self-interested. This is not really credible. First, the costs of tear-down and new construction are less than those of renovation. (I would have assumed that ESM would endorse one of these options but, as noted below, they don’t seem to see the need for having Bishop as a school). The critical point is that DeJong would not be directly involved in either course of action. DeJong was engaged to develop a plan for the city, which they have done, and been paid for. The work, if any, that is done to put that plan into effect will be done by others. At most, DeJong might be brought back after a few years to update the plan. They really have no financial interest in whether it is implemented.

Finally, the editorial suggests selling Bishop and the property on which it sits. It is hard to believe that anyone who has paid attention to the events of the last year would seriously put this forward. It is now clear that demand for good-quality public education on the east side is strong. The School Department recognizes this, as does the City. I would have hoped that an East Side media outlet would not be left so far behind the curve. Shuttering the only middle school in the area, and thereby eliminating 40% of the public school seats for K-8 is NOT in the best interest of the community. It is highly surprising that East Side Monthly would suggest doing so.

Like this:

Related

4 Responses

I am in total agreement with the editorial in the East-Side Monthly. I am also in total agreement with David Brussat’s column regarding the tearing down of existing schools.

Although I am an East-Sider, I have followed the story of West Broadway. What a sad story. Those people move into that neighborhood for it’s historic impact. Now they are faced with a cute little new school in a couple of years—-after their kids sit out a couple of years on a former garbage dump.

I say move those Central to kids to Bishop for a couple of years.

Neither the superintendent nor the DEJong group is winning points here. What a shame.

I can understand feeling frustration about parts of this process, but I am somewhat puzzled by your comments, Shirley. Does your total agreement extend to the part that asks us to consider selling Bishop?

As for the part of the ESM editorial that asks us think about rennovation rather than new construction, remember that’s exactly what the Jan, 2007 DeJong plan called for. If a new building is built there instead, it will be because the community wants it. The City and School Department are about to hold two public meetings in which the community itself will have a chance to influence this choice. In fact, I can’t imagine that, at this point, the City will go against a clear and strong preference expressed by an informed community.

As for the other schools, I’m not in a position to say what is best. The way West Broadway was handled WAS a shame, and ESPEC said so publicly. I hope PPSD never does anything that way again.

You say we should “move the Central kids to Bishop for a couple of years”. Personally, I wouldn’t want my kids in that building the way it is now and don’t think other kids should have to go there. If you mean renovate/rebuild and then move them in, then I don’t think it solves the city’s current problems. Either way, it means that the East Side, from I-95 to the Seekonk, goes another 5 years without any 6-8th grade seats at all. That’s exactly what we organized to prevent.

When I first read the editorial, it seemed so emotional and silly that I thought it was best just to dismiss it.

I agree that there is something grand about old buildings. Early on, I had felt that renovation was the best way to go. Unfortunately, there are economic realities to consider. The building is too big for the planned student body. Sure, getting a community partner in to share the building might solve that problem, but no one seems to be able to work toward that as a possible solution. The RIDE funding formula will not pay for renovation of the entire space. Some type of hybrid project might make sense – keep the facade and some components of the old building, and integrate new educational space with the preserved parts of the old building. The costs for a hybrid though are probably higher than the cost of straight renovation, which is substantially higher than the cost of new construction. The length of time to build is greater. Who will pay for that? How many years should we go without a functioning middle school?

Clearly no one wants boxy or prison architecture. Believe it or not, the city has done a marvelous thing in hiring ai-3 to be the architects for this school. They have done both new construction and renovation. Before anyone complains about what they might design, they should take a look at ai-3’s website and talk to the architects directly. The Nathan Bishop committee has. Ai-3 appears to have a clear understanding of the type of architecture most East Siders would be happy to see. Take a look – I believe even the most ardent preservationists would be pleasantly surprised.

Additional support SHOULD go to further improve the school system. These $$ though would not come from the same pool of money as $$ that would be spent on construction, 80% of which comes from RIDE and the state. Perhaps the ESM editorial staff would consider devoting an issue to what it really costs to educate children in ALL of Providence, and how school funding formulas would need to change state-wide to provide fairer and more appropriate $$ to urban schools.

When I considered that the ESM editorial staff was suggesting that kids on the East Side might go without a middle school, I couldn’t figure out how they could be so ridiculous. Do they understand how many people leave the East Side because there is no clear K-12 public school pathway for their children? Do they realize that we need an excellent middle school for our kids attending our now excellent elementary schools to feed into? When they suggested that the building might be sold and the money funneled just into the East Side Public schools, I knew they couldn’t mean it… but then I realized… this was the April edition of the ESM. That can only mean that this editorial was their traditional April Fool’s joke – right?

wow, I thought the East-side Monthly’s april fool’s joke was the RISD article-

the Journal had an excellent editorial on keeping old buildings. Did anyone see it or David Brussat’s column?

I think Bishop could be cleaned up the same way Hope was. Bishop was not taken care of in recent years. As soon as the new administrators came to Hope–it was cleaned up and actually is quite presentable now. It wouldn’t matter how much anyone spent on a new building if it were not kept up. I understand some of the other “new” schools are experiencing up keep issues.

I am not quite sure why a middle school needs to be a certain size–will it always be a middle school? I am still wondering about the 7-12 concept-which seems to be hot elsewhere, but not here.